Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
Go to
www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information.
| (i) Name of supported organization | (ii) EIN | (iii) Type of organization (described on lines 1- 10 above (see instructions)) | (iv) Is the organization listed in your governing document? | (v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions) | (vi) Amount of other support (see instructions) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||||
|
Total |
0 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2016 | (b) 2017 | (c) 2018 | (d) 2019 | (e) 2020 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grant.") .. | 103,171 | 2,293,487 | 3,147,874 | 6,333,370 | 11,877,902 | |
| 2 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf.... | 0 | |||||
| 3 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge.. | 0 | |||||
| 4 | Total. Add lines 1 through 3 | 103,171 | 2,293,487 | 3,147,874 | 6,333,370 | 11,877,902 | |
| 5 | The portion of total contributions by each person (other than a governmental unit or publicly supported organization) included on line 1 that exceeds 2% of the amount shown on line 11, column (f).. | 0 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 11,877,902 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2016 | (b) 2017 | (c) 2018 | (d) 2019 | (e) 2020 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 103,171 | 2,293,487 | 3,147,874 | 6,333,370 | 11,877,902 | |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 0 | |||||
| 9 | Net income from unrelated business activities, whether or not the business is regularly carried on.. | ||||||
| 10 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.).. | 679 | 679 | ||||
| 11 | Total support. Add lines 7 through 10 | 11,878,581 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2016 | (b) 2017 | (c) 2018 | (d) 2019 | (e) 2020 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") . | ||||||
| 2 | Gross receipts from admissions, merchandise sold or services performed, or facilities furnished in any activity that is related to the organization's tax-exempt purpose | ||||||
| 3 | Gross receipts from activities that are not an unrelated trade or business under section 513 ..... | ||||||
| 4 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf... | ||||||
| 5 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge | ||||||
| 6 | Total. Add lines 1 through 5 | ||||||
| 7a | Amounts included on lines 1, 2, and 3 received from disqualified persons | ||||||
| b | Amounts included on lines 2 and 3 received from other than disqualified persons that exceed the greater of $5,000 or 1% of the amount on line 13 for the year. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 7a and 7b.. | ||||||
| 8 | Public support. (Subtract line 7c from line 6.) | 0 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2016 | (b) 2017 | (c) 2018 | (d) 2019 | (e) 2020 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | Amounts from line 6... | ||||||
| 10a | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources.. | ||||||
| b | Unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 taxes) from businesses acquired after June 30, 1975. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 10a and 10b. | ||||||
| 11 | Net income from unrelated business activities not included in line 10b, whether or not the business is regularly carried on. | ||||||
| 12 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.) .. | ||||||
| 13 | Total support. (Add lines 9, 10c, 11, and 12.).. | ||||||
| Section A - Adjusted Net Income | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Net short-term capital gain | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Other gross income (see instructions) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Add lines 1 through 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Depreciation and depletion | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Portion of operating expenses paid or incurred for production or collection of gross income or for management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for production of income (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Other expenses (see instructions) | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Adjusted Net Income (subtract lines 5, 6 and 7 from line 4) | 8 | ||||
| Section B - Minimum Asset Amount | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Aggregate fair market value of all non-exempt-use assets (see instructions for short tax year or assets held for part of year): | 1 | ||||
| a | Average monthly value of securities | 1a | ||||
| b | Average monthly cash balances | 1b | ||||
| c | Fair market value of other non-exempt-use assets | 1c | ||||
| d | Total (add lines 1a, 1b, and 1c) | 1d | ||||
| e |
Discount claimed for blockage or other factors (explain in detail in Part VI): |
|||||
| 2 | Acquisition indebtedness applicable to non-exempt use assets | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Subtract line 2 from line 1d | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Cash deemed held for exempt use. Enter 0.015 of line 3 (for greater amount, see instructions). | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Net value of non-exempt-use assets (subtract line 4 from line 3) | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Multiply line 5 by 0.035 | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Minimum Asset Amount (add line 7 to line 6) | 8 | ||||
| Section C - Distributable Amount | Current Year | |||||
| 1 | Adjusted net income for prior year (from Section A, line 8, Column A) | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Enter 85% of line 1 | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Minimum asset amount for prior year (from Section B, line 8, Column A) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Enter greater of line 2 or line 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Income tax imposed in prior year | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Distributable Amount. Subtract line 5 from line 4, unless subject to emergency temporary reduction (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| Section D - Distributions | Current Year | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Amounts paid to supported organizations to accomplish exempt purposes | 1 | |
|
2
Amounts paid to perform activity that directly furthers exempt purposes of supported organizations, in excess of income from activity |
2 | |
| 3 Administrative expenses paid to accomplish exempt purposes of supported organizations | 3 | |
| 4 Amounts paid to acquire exempt-use assets | 4 | |
| 5 Qualified set-aside amounts (prior IRS approval required - provide details in Part VI) | 5 | |
| 6 Other distributions (describe in Part VI). See instructions | 6 | |
| 7Total annual distributions. Add lines 1 through 6. | 7 | |
|
8
Distributions to attentive supported organizations to which the organization is responsive (provide details in Part VI). See instructions |
8 | |
| 9 Distributable amount for 2020 from Section C, line 6 | 9 | |
| 10 Line 8 amount divided by Line 9 amount | 10 | |
| Section E - Distribution Allocations (see instructions) |
(i) Excess Distributions |
(ii) Underdistributions Pre-2020 |
(iii) Distributable Amount for 2020 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Distributable amount for 2020 from Section C, line 6 | ||||
|
2
Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2019 (reasonable cause required-- explain in Part VI). See instructions. |
||||
| 3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2020: | ||||
| a From 2015....... | ||||
| b From 2016....... | ||||
| c From 2017....... | ||||
| d From 2018....... | ||||
| e From 2019....... | ||||
| fTotal of lines 3a through e | ||||
| g Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| h Applied to 2020 distributable amount | ||||
|
i
Carryover from 2015 not applied (see instructions) |
||||
| j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from line 3f. | ||||
| 4Distributions for 2020 from Section D, line 7: | ||||
| $ | ||||
| a Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| b Applied to 2020 distributable amount | ||||
| c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from line 4. | ||||
|
5
Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2020, if any. Subtract lines 3g and 4a from line 2. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions. |
||||
|
6
Remaining underdistributions for 2020. Subtract lines 3h and 4b from line 1. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions. |
||||
|
7 Excess distributions carryover to 2021. Add lines 3j and 4c. |
||||
| 8 Breakdown of line 7: | ||||
| a Excess from 2016..... | ||||
| b Excess from 2017..... | ||||
| c Excess from 2018..... | ||||
| d Excess from 2019..... | ||||
| e Excess from 2020..... | ||||
| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Pt II Ln 10 | Other Income Part II, Line 10 Description: OTHER 2018: 679. |
| Software ID: | 20011577 |
| Software Version: |
Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for the latest information.
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Pt VI, Line 8b | THE ORGANIZATION CURRENTLY DOES NOT HAVE ANY COMMITTEES. THE ENTIRE BOARD SELECTS THE INDEPENDENT AUDITOR AND REVIEWS THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. |
| Pt VI, Line 11b | THE FORM 990 IS PREPARED BY AN OUTSIDE ACCOUNTING FIRM, REVIEWED BY THE PRESIDENT, THEN SENT TO THE ENTIRE BOARD FOR REVIEW, BEFORE FILING WITH THE IRS. |
| Pt VI, Line 12c | EACH MEMBER OF THE BOARD AND/OR OFFICER ANNUALLY COMPLETES A CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT, DISCLOSING ANY POTENTIAL CONFLICTS. SHOULD A CONFLICT ARISE,AN INTERESTED PERSON MAY MAKE A PRESENTATION AT THE GOVERNING BOARD MEEING, BUT, AFTER THE PRESENTATION, HE/SHE LEAVES THE MEETING DURING THE DISCUSSION OF, AND VOTE ON, THE TRANSACTION OR ARRANGEMENT INVOLVING THE POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE GOVERNING BOARD, IF APPROPIATE, APPOINTS A DISINTERESTED PERSON OR COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION OR ARRANGEMENT. AFTER EXCERCISING DUE DILIGENCE, THE GOVERNING BOARD DETERMINES WHETHER THE ORGANIZATION CAN OBTAIN WITH REASONABLE EFFORTS A MORE ADVANTAGEOUS TRANSACTION OR ARRANGEMENT FROM A PERSON OR ENTITY THAT WOULD NOT GIVE RISE TO A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. IF A MORE ADVANTAGEOUS TRANSACTION OR ARRANGEMENT IS NOT REASONABLY POSSIBLE UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES NOT PRODUCING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THE GOVERNING BOARD DETERMINES BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE DISINTERESTED DIRECTORS WHETHER THE TRANSACTION OR ARRANGEMENT IS IN THE ORGANIZATION'S BEST INTEREST, FOR ITS OWN BENEFIT, AND WHTHER IT IS FAIR AND REASONABLE. IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ABOVE DETERMINATION, IT MAKES ITS DECISION AS TO WHETHER TO ENTER INTO A TRANSACTION OR ARRANGEMENT. |
| Pt VI, Line 15a | THE ORGANIZATION'S DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS WERE PERFORMED BY THE BOARD |
| Pt VI, Line 19 | THE ORGANIZATION MAKES IT GOVERNING DOCUMENTS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY, AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC PER REQUEST. |
| Other | PART III LINE 4A STATEMENT OF PROGRAM SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS National Police Association Accomplishments Highlights of 2019 Thanks to the support of our generous donors, National Police Association (NPA) was in many instances the only voice in defense of law enforcement. The NPA filed a friend of the court brief in case number 1884CV03561, American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts Inc et al vs. Boston Police Department et al in Massachusetts Superior Court Suffolk County. The NPA opposed the ACLU's attack on law enforcement's ability to investigate street gangs, arguing to Massachusetts it should uphold the right of the Boston Police Department to maintain a confidential gang database. The NPA argued against the ACLU which claims in its suit against the Boston Police Department that including a suspected gang member in a confidential gang database is unfair to suspected gang members. The ACLU complains that suspected gang members who are added to the gang database are subject to investigation and if in the country illegally, deportation. The ACLU criticizes the Boston Police Department for considering such factors as associating with known gang members, proclaiming gang membership on Facebook, and flashing gang signs as criteria for determining whether a suspected gang member is a gang member. The ACLU seeks to open up the gang data base to the public. The NPA's brief argues that given the link between gang membership and violence, and the growing gang population, it is crucial that law enforcement is able to use every available modern technique and tool available to it. To be able to effectively allocate resources and develop programming to combat gang violence, a critical first step is to accurately estimate the magnitude and nature of a particular gang population. And to effectively prosecute gang-related crimes, which by their very nature are more difficult to prosecute, it is critical to understand the interconnected relationships and complex dynamics between rival gangs. Gang Unit investigators need to familiarize themselves with the dynamics of gangs, including, but not limited to their membership size, territory, local hangouts, rivalries, and types of crimes committed, as well as the identification and personal and criminal backgrounds of individual members. While the ACLU seemingly wants gang databases treated like credit reports open to the review of suspected gang members, it would obviously defeat the idea of intelligence gathering to notify the target that he or she has been identified by the investigators as a criminal threat. Many communities have policies consistent with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security definition of sanctuary cities even without the consent or knowledge of voters. NPA targeted sanctuary areas throughout the nation and contacted citizens living in such communities, alerting them to their area's sanctuary policies and the implications of these policies. * The National Police Association provided President Trump an analysis and recommendations of the Baltimore Police Consent Decree, a two hundred twenty-seven (227) page document with more than five hundred (500) articulated paragraphs of content, written by the Obama era Justice Department and forced upon Baltimore Patrol Officers concluding it is without exception a hammer being used by the City and the Court against the interests of officer safety, public safety, officer morale and law enforcement. As written and implemented the Consent Decree punishes Patrol Officers for proactive policing forcing them to merely respond to radio calls rather than to make traffic stops, interrogate suspicious persons, and investigate questionable circumstances. Violent crime is going up in Baltimore because the Consent Decree treats Baltimore Patrol Officers, not violent crime, as the problem. Treating law enforcement rather than criminals as the problem is a mistake of epic proportions by politicians and leaders that has had particularly disastrous consequences for the people of Baltimore and its Patrol Officers. While violent crime has went down nationally, in Baltimore with its handcuffed and short staffed Patrol Officers, violent crime has gone up. What a Baltimore Patrol Officer knows is if they question suspicious individuals loitering on a street corner, they will spend three times the time it takes to investigate doing dozens of pages of paperwork which will be reviewed twice over by a command structure that has been coerced into publicly shaming Patrol Officers who dare attempt to do their jobs. At least Patrol Officers don't have to worry about being criticized for hunting down a fleeing felon as that has been all but banned. And as officers have been prevented from enforcing the law either due to a lack of staffing or lack of resources or lack of support, or outrageous policies the most vulnerable residents of the City have suffered at the hands of violent crime the most. The report to President Trump requested that the President direct Attorney General William Barr to use the terms of the Consent Decree to enforce the City's obligations to provide the appropriate level of training, staffing and support to Patrol Officers using the funding provisions contained within the Consent Decree and the reserved authority explicitly provided DOJ by the Consent Decree. * The NPA reached out in an online campaign to request supporters of law enforcement contact the Ohio Parole Board to object to the granting of parole to a convicted cop killer. On April 5, 1986, Columbus, Ohio Officer Gordon Joe Rich was working a federal traffic enforcement detail. While on patrol he stopped a vehicle on Interstate 70 at State Route 315. James Lumpkin Rattler was removed from the car and attacked Officer Rich, gaining control of his gun and shooting him, leaving Officer Rich, a 23-year police veteran, mortally wounded. Rattler and the other occupant of the vehicle drove away and were able to briefly escape capture. Rich, 45, struggled back to his cruiser, got on the radio then collapsed. Investigators theorized that Rattler, who was wanted, had been placed under arrest and ordered to stand by the cruiser for a search when he grabbed the gun. Rattler avoided the death penalty by pleading guilty to aggravated murder. He is serving a life sentence in prison. Rattler would have been eligible for parole in February 2019. Subsequent to the NPA campaign his parole was denied. * The NPA reached out in an online campaign to request supporters of law enforcement sign a petition and contact the town of Elgin, IL requesting the reinstatement of Elgin Police Lt. Christian Jensen. Over the past two decades of public service, Elgin, IL Police Lt. Christian Jensen, has received 22 commendations and more than 70 letters of appreciation. He has served the people of Elgin as a SWAT team leader, and adviser to the Police Explorer program. In addition to uniform patrol he has served in the gang crimes unit and the narcotics unit. On March 12, 2018 DeCynthia Clements, after leading officers on a chase, initiated a standoff on the side of the highway. Officers attempted to negotiate with her for an hour. After finally agreeing to surrender she instead set her vehicle on fire, exited, and charged toward the officers with a knife in each hand. In defense of his life and the lives of others Lt. Jensen fired his duty weapon fatally wounding Clements. A medical examiner determined Clements had cocaine in her bloodstream. In the aftermath of the encounter Lt. Jensen was placed on administrative leave and was subjected to multiple investigations. An outside consulting firm, Hillard Heintze, found Jensen acted within use of force policies. The Cook County State's Attorney's office and Illinois State Police both previously found no grounds to file criminal charges against Jensen. Yet, his reinstatement was not certain. City Council members Corey Dixon and Tish Powell demanded he be fired. Police Chief Ana Lalley had yet to make a recommendation to City Manager Richard Kozal about whether Lt. Jensen should be fired or reinstated. Subsequent to the NPA's online campaign and delivery of its petition to reinstate Lt. Jensen was reinstated to active duty. * The NPA conducted online reward for information campaigns offering $5,000 rewards for information leading to the arrests and convictions of suspects in the shootings of and shooting at police officers in several states. * NPA provided cash grants to multiple Police Explorer and Cadet programs which educate youth in how to be of assistance to law enforcement and their communities. NPA also provided scholarships to students seeking to attain certification as police chaplains so as to be able to assist law enforcement and their communities. * The NPA reached scores of Americans with our message in support of our law enforcement officers through our 40,000 Facebook followers, our 60,000 Twitter followers, and those we reached through mail and the news |
| Other | ACHIEVEMENTS IN 2020 In 2020 the NPA's Educational, Alliance and Advocacy Programs included sorting and delivery of Pledge of Support cards to police departments, tabulation and distribution of public opinion surveys, radio and television public service announcements, petition drives in support of police officers and opposition to the parole of convicted cop killers conducted through press releases and social media. Other education initiatives included The NPA Report, a weekly TV program available on the Pluto TV network as well at TheFirstTV.com app and on our YouTube page. Additionally, the NPA published its first book, The Obama Gang, available at Barnes and Noble, Amazon, and wherever books are sold. Advocacy programs included filing amicus briefs in courts in support of individual police officers and agencies to include In the Supreme Court of the United States, DeRay Mckesson, Petitioner v. John Doe, Respondent in support of an injured Baton Rouge police officer, and in Oregon federal court, Index Newspapers LLC, et al, v City of Portland, et al, in support of the Portland Oregon Police Department. |
| Form 990, Part IX, Line 24e | EDUCATIONAL & OUTREACH PROGRAMS 448599. 448599. 0. 0. |
| Form 990, Part IX, Line 24e | PREMIUMS 118846. 35669. 27125. 56052. |
| Form 990, Part IX, Line 24e | GRAPHIC DESIGN 36239. 12684. 3624. 19931. |
| Form 990, Part IX, Line 24e | MAIL HOUSE FEES 322503. 110261. 38974. 173268. |
| Form 990, Part IX, Line 24e | MAIL LIST RENTALS 644226. 196791. 138192. 309243. |
| Form 990, Part IX, Line 24e | POSTAGE 2086497. 514392. 763775. 808330. |
| Form 990, Part IX, Line 24e | PRINT & TYPESET 891908. 312116. 89325. 490467. |
| Form 990, Part IX, Line 24e | PROGRAM SERVICES 14389. 14389. 0. 0. |
| Form 990, Part IX, Line 24e | SUBCONTRACTORS 59214. 0. 59214. 0. |
| Form 990, Part IX, Line 24e | DONATIONS 3000. 3000. 0. 0. |
| Form 990, Part IX, Line 24e | FILING FEE 300. 0. 300. 0. |
| Software ID: | 20011577 |
| Software Version: |